Letters

'Highest Praise' for Harold Howe II

To the Editor:

For the many thousands of us within the American educational
community who owe Harold Howe II a debt of incomparable gratitude, I
can only express our unbearable sadness at his passing ("Howe Pioneered New Federal Role in
U.S. Education," Dec. 11, 2002). "Doc" Howe for us was not only a
shining example of what a caring, compassionate, and supremely wise
educator should be, but also a model of what it means to be a great
human being.

His lifelong devotion to the fight for a fair, just, and equal
American education system and his unequaled concern for poor and
minority children and their families deserve the highest praise his
profession and his country can possibly give.

A Less Costly Route To 'What Works'

When I was a graduate student at a major university, the most
important thing I learned was that the vast majority of educational
"research" is not worth the paper it is printed on. There are so many
variables involved that it is easy to "guide" the data down the desired
path.

Before the federal government pours millions of dollars into
endorsing and funding such programs as Success for All and Direct
Instruction, I suggest that the U.S. Department of Education send its
own investigators into an experimental school in September and then
again in June. They should listen to the children read and make an
independent determination of "what works."

Linda JohnsonLong Beach, Calif.

Schools Chief Earns His 'Gentleman's C'

To the Editor:

We read with interest Eric J. Smith's Commentary ("Good-Bye to the Gentleman's C,"
Nov. 27, 2002), in which he described the positive impact he had on
student performance in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system in North
Carolina, from the time he became superintendent to the time he left
for a similar position in Anne Arundel County, Md. He attributes the
improvements to the establishment of clear goals, the building of staff
commitment, and overall leadership.

For the improvements he documents, he gets an A. For implying that
he started from ground zero in a school system that was floundering
until he arrived, he gets, at best, his own gentleman's C.

A major problem that crops up whenever a new superintendent moves
into a district is the tendency to trash whatever accomplishments the
prior superintendent may have made. Although this approach makes good
journalistic copy, it in fact sends a message to members of the staff
and community alike that their work in the recent past was for naught;
and it devalues the hard work of teachers and many others.

In those cases in which a new superintendent is faced with a system
that has failed miserably prior to his arrival, he or she does need to
expose that fact and get down to the business of turning things around.
On the other hand, when a new superintendent comes to a school system
that is on the right track and has the data to prove it, he or
she needs to acknowledge past performance and continue to build on or
even accelerate the trend.

For whatever reason, Mr. Smith decided to portray Charlotte as a
failing system when he arrived, ignoring the public data to the
contrary. He ignored the fact that for the five years prior to his
arrival, the percentage of students scoring at or above grade level on
the state test increased meaningfully in almost every grade and subject
tested; that the percentage of students scoring a 3 or better on
Advanced Placement exams more than doubled, while at the same time,
enrollments in AP increased; that the number of students in the
International Baccalaureate program went from zero to 2,600; and that
enrollments in higher- level classes increased from 21,113 students to
32,745.

These statistics do not diminish Mr. Smith's claims to success
during his Charlotte tenure. Rather, they signal to Mr. Smith and
others in the profession that public education will get the respect it
deserves only when it can prove that the institution itself (and not
any one person) is effective, and that truly successful and
professionally secure leaders are able to acknowledge past successes of
their peers and work to enhance and accelerate them.

If this doesn't occur, public education will continue to be seen as
being in crisis and searching for that one savior who can make a
difference.

More on the Need For Term Papers

To the Editor:

Extended research papers in high school must be encouraged not only
in history, but also in English and other courses as well ("Relegating Student Research to the
Past," Nov. 20, 2002; "Term Papers: A Sad Decline;
Some Possible Solutions," Letters, Dec. 11, 2002). Good writing,
competent research, and clear thinking—all of which are developed
in a semester-long research project at the high school level—are
no longer the province of a couple of classes, but are necessary
throughout the curriculum.

As a college literature and composition professor, I need entering
college students to have a set of skills to build upon, rather than a
blank slate to instruct from scratch. Students likewise need continued
practice at those skills, not only for academic but for professional
success.

More than ever, in our information- rich but analysis-poor culture,
writing, researching, and critical-thinking skills are paramount to the
development of ethical citizens who can seek their own answers in a
culture that increasingly uses its most sophisticated mechanisms for
the manipulation of public opinion.

Daniel T. KlineAnchorage, Alaska

To the Editor:

Reading and writing in research are reciprocal. Writing allows one's
innermost thoughts—including higher cognitive skills— to
"make sense of" ideas, and challenges the writer to deeper concept
development and mastery of thought. Teachers should not be allowed to
decide if a research paper suits them; the district should decide the
means to challenge students to higher academic requirements. If a child
can write well, he can speak well. Have you listened to the general
public's daily use of grammar lately? I wonder if there's a
connection.

J. BrittPittsburgh, Pa.

On Small Schools, Ask More Questions

To the Editor:

Here's hoping that your Report Roundup item ("Smaller
Schools,") of Nov. 20, 2002, summarized only an abbreviated version
of the report "Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small
Schools." If not, the report is a classic case of making a point with
numbers that misses the point— or of totally ignoring the
relationship of cause and effect.

The report finds that small schools are safer than large schools,
and that they send more students to college. If these conclusions are
drawn from aggregated data, all small schools and all large schools are
included, regardless of their locations. Anyone could have come to the
same conclusions without the assistance of high-powered researchers. It
is little wonder, however, that an architectural firm and a rural
school group would be the prime sponsors of this report.

We should ask a few questions about the report's "findings,"
particularly as they relate to high schools: Where do we find large
schools? Is it the same place we find higher rates of criminal
incidents? Is it the same place we find higher percentages of
socioeconomically challenged students, those not likely to see college
as an option?

Conversely, where do we find small schools? Is it the place we find
relatively low rates of crime? Is it the same place we find relatively
lower percentages of socioeconomically challenged students and those
who, even when economically challenged, come from households more
likely to encourage college attendance?

If we reversed the localities of the large and small schools, would
the findings be the same, or would they more likely be reversed
also?

Math Initiative Betrays a Bias

To the Editor:

We appreciate your reporting of the White House mathematics
initiative ("Bush to Push for
Math and Science Upgrade," Nov. 20, 2002). However, you might also
have reported that the selection as federal grant recipients of three
professors— Douglas Carnine, R. James Milgram, and Tom Loveless
(all chosen by a process that was not peer-reviewed)—represents a
biased and limited perspective.

We need a balanced approach, not another iteration of the one-sided
argument these three professors have continually espoused. The
initiative as presently enacted is a serious mistake. The existing
research—the full body of educational research, not a selected
subset—makes a powerful counterargument to the unabashedly
conservative views of these researchers.

The complete research picture, while not definitive, is becoming
increasingly convincing. For example, perhaps the largest database we
have includes the international comparisons that show clearly that
teachers in the countries outperforming the United States integrate
meaningful concepts and problem-solving with skill learning and follow
the spirit of the recommendations made by America's National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics more closely than teachers in the United States
do.

Douglas ClementsWilliamsville, N.Y.

On School Choice In New Zealand

To the Editor:

Letter-writer Walt Gardner is in good company in mistaking New
Zealand's public-school- choice program for a full-blown voucher
experiment ( "For Voucher
Results Try New Zealand," Letters, Nov. 13, 2002). Those who don't
know the difference between a market and New Zealand's 96.5 percent
government-owned system include several academic scholars and former
U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, among others.

In a competitive market, and in a full-blown, Milton Friedman-style,
universal voucher system, there would be numerous independent schools,
and educators would be free to set up schools and to set the price of
their services. Unpopular schools would transform themselves or close.
Popular schools would expand and be copied. New Zealand's program of
public school choice lacks all of those critical market
features.

John MerrifieldCollege of Business
University of Texas, San Antonio
San Antonio, Texas

Think of Obesity As a Disability

To the Editor:

I couldn't agree more with the points that former U.S. Surgeon
General David Satcher made in his essay for Education Week on
the problem of obesity in children ("Pound-Foolish," Oct. 16,
2002). This is an extremely alarming issue that affects the future
health of our entire nation.

We generally find that if students don't participate in a sport,
they simply don't exercise. Unlike their parents, who go off to the gym
or walk in the neighborhood, children are either in organized sports or
indoors in front of a television or a computer screen.

A related problem is that the food portions we provide are
supersized. For many adolescents, the occasional second helping becomes
the norm, and eating as much as one can at every meal becomes the
routine.

Schools need to take responsibility for students who are seriously
at risk of obesity or are presently obese. They should be treated with
the same care and dedication we offer children with disabilities. In
fact, the model of intervention we have used so successfully in
assisting disabled students should be applied to the seriously
overweight child.

Professionals and parents should join together to identify the
contributing factors that lead to the child's problem. They should
develop an individually designed plan to help the child, much as we do
when developing an individualized education plan, or IEP, for the
special education child. Through careful selection of attainable goals
and objectives and coordination with the family physician, a plan that
leads to improved health and functioning can be developed and
implemented.

Through continual monitoring and refinement of the plan, we can move
the child to a better state of health. Doing so is as much our
responsibility as dealing with other behavioral or health issues.

School Choice and District Revenues

To the Editor:

A recent letter claimed that vouchers and charter schools actually
benefit public schools by taking only part of the total per-student
funding, while losing the entire student ("Can Choice Benefit District
Revenues?," Letters, Nov. 27, 2002).

The writer, John A. Cairns, sarcastically remarked that school
leaders who cannot understand this "may not be able to pass even 4th
grade math."

Mr. Cairns then went on to give an example: "Assume $5,000 per child
for 500 students," he wrote, "or total revenues of $250,000." Unless
there was a typographical error, it appears that Mr. Cairns would not
fare very well on a math test, himself.

Let me correct his math and his reasoning.

Five hundred students at $5,000 each amounts to a loss of $2.5
million, not $250,000. At a ratio of 25 students per teacher, the net
effect on a district is that it will hire 20 fewer new teachers than if
the 500 students remained. Even using a generous figure of $50,000 per
teacher in salary and benefits, the district has only reduced its
revenues by $1 million. Thus, instead of Mr. Cairns' analysis that "the
district would retain $125,000 to use for the remaining kids," the
reality is that the district now must reduce by $1.5 million its
spending on students who choose to stay in public school.

This is one of the points rarely made in school choice discussions.
The students who "choose" to remain in public schools that operate on
larger scales of efficiency are harmed by those who choose to divert
tax dollars to less efficient and (generally) less effective private
alternatives.

In comparing access to computers with graduation rates, there
actually does appear to be a correlation, but it's a negative
correlation: The more computers in the school, the lower the graduation
rate. These kinds of hard data, as pointed out by Ms. Kazmin, should
send a powerful message to the schools and the computer companies that
unlimited technology is not necessarily good for student achievement.
(Although I suspect the companies have known this for quite some
time.)

It is now up to the individual school boards to study the issue and
feel free to say no to more technology.

'The Wizard of Oz' Fails as Metaphor

To the Editor:

Howard Good's attempt to use "The Wizard of Oz" as a metaphor
("Off to See the Wizard,"
Commentary, Dec. 11, 2002) doesn't work because the Bush
administration's ultimate goal is not to improve public schools but to
dismantle them. The new rules emanating from the U.S. Department of
Education that force good schools within a district to accept students
from failing schools even if there is no space available give the lie
to the rhetoric coming from the White House.

The rules are merely the latest in a series of absurd regulations
from the anti-government, pro-private-sector forces ruling the country.
And it's working as planned. The National Association of State Boards
of Education estimates that properly funding the testing mandate of the
"No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001, which wrongfully constitutes the
basis for determining failing schools, is between $2.7 billion and $7
billion. This sum is a bonanza for the testing companies and textbook
publishers, dominated by McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, and Harcourt
General, known collectively as the Big Three.

When the nation's support for public schools is finally undermined
based upon preposterous rules and dubious test-score results, the stage
will be set for total privatization, all in the name of educational
quality. I urge Mr. Good to devote his next essay to this subject,
rather than engaging in educational fantasy. His journalistic talents
are too good to be squandered.

Walt GardnerLos Angeles, Calif.

Bush School Plan Cautions and Caveats

To the Editor:

In "Can the Bush
School Plan Work?," (Commentary, Dec. 4, 2002), Michael Casserly
holds on to the notion that the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 has
merit because it is well-intended: How could educators complain about
wanting all children to achieve at high levels? In my own 30-plus years
in this business, I've never met a teacher or an administrator who does
not want children to succeed.

What is the problem then, as once again we scurry to implement
another "new" federal mandate? The problem is simple: It is another
federal mandate.

Mr. Casserly cites a number of successful districts and the systemic
methods they have been using to improve student learning. His examples
are good ones, and they point to what schools can do when given the
chance to introduce change that is planned, implemented over time, and
well worth the wait for outcomes.

Unfortunately, these same critical components of success are not
part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, the law is yet another
quick shot from the hip. When the president came riding into town, the
"Texas miracle" became the path for all of us to take, like it or
not.

It is too bad that the legislation's good intentions might be lost,
as Mr. Casserly writes, in a "national catfight over whether the letter
of the law is more important than its grand intent." But I am one
educator who'll take no blame for that. The law includes sections on
school prayer, the rights of the military to have freer access to
students, and other questionable entanglements. When we couple these
with the Bush administration's continuing push for vouchers, it becomes
obvious that good intentions will have a difficult time finding their
way out of this law. Who is to blame for that?

Education remains a major part of our national agenda.
Unfortunately, we haven't found a way to place all students on the same
page. We seem to know what works, but no one has yet had the courage to
stand back and let these workable solutions happen. Ironically, the
progress being made by the districts Mr. Casserly refers to had its
initial beginnings well before the No Child Left Behind Act was
enacted. Can anyone say "Goals 2000"?

The Bush education plan should be given a fair chance to succeed or
fail on its own merits. But to my way of thinking, one critical area is
being ignored: research on the effects of learning disabilities in
adults, such as myself, who weren't diagnosed until later in life
(those age 30 and up, for example).

In the Canadian province of Ontario alone, estimates are that one in
seven of the region's homeless population have learning disabilities,
developmental disabilities, or a combination of both.

These people were yesterday's "problem children" in school and were
effectively thrown away by society. Think about it.

Robert M. TrygarCottonwood, Calif.

Evidence and Ideology

To the Editor:

In your article ("Can Choice Benefit District
Revenues?," Letters, Nov. 27, 2002), Jon Baron is quoted as saying,
"There's been no improvement in education over the last 30 years,
despite a 90 percent increase in real public spending per pupil."

It's pretty amazing that Mr. Baron, the executive director of the
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, would ignore the evidence of
educational progress during the 20th century—and the last 30
years in particular—to make such an outrageously false statement.
Doesn't the following qualify as improvement?

In 1970, only about 57 percent of whites age 25 or older had
completed four years of high school. By 2000, that figure had climbed
to 88 percent.

In 1970, fewer than 37 percent of all blacks age 25 or older had
completed four years of high school. Today, the percentage is nearly
79 percent.

In 1970, only 15 percent of white males and fewer than 9 percent
of white females over the age of 25 had completed four years of
college. By 2000, those percentages had increased to over 30 percent
and 25 percent, respectively.

In 1970, only about 6 percent of all blacks over the age of 25
had completed four years of college. By 2000, that percentage had
more than doubled, to over 16 percent.

In viewing the "long-term trends" in the National Assessment of
Educational Progress data from 1970 to 2000, it would appear that the
trends are fairly flat, that there has been, as Mr. Baron claims, no
real improvement in 30 years. However, there are two NAEP assessments:
One is the "long term" assessment, and the other is the "main"
assessment.

According to NAEP, "The long-term trend mathematics assessment
measures students' knowledge of basic facts, ability to carry out
numerical algorithms using paper and pencil, knowledge of basic
measurement formulas as they are applied in geometric settings, and
ability to apply mathematics to daily-living skills (such as those
related to time and money). The computational focus of the long-term
trend assessment provides a unique opportunity to determine how our
students are measuring up to traditional procedural skills."

However, the "main" NAEP assessment involves questions that are more
reflective of the kind of problem-solving skills and conceptual
understanding that states are demanding of their students. And in this
kind of "main" NAEP assessment, which has been in use since 1990, there
has been significant improvement across the board in the past
decade.

While there is no question that educational policy needs to be
"evidence based," the danger is that political considerations will so
narrowly define what constitutes evidence to exclude, or ignore,
counterfactual evidence that contradicts a preordained ideological
position. In the words of our president, "values trumps data."

By falsely claiming that there has been "no improvement in education
over the last 30 years," Mr. Baron and others lay a foundational lie
upon which the cause for the privatization of public education can be
built.

Privatization of public education may in fact turn out, based on the
evidence, to be superior in all respects to publicly managed education.
But such a conclusion should be based on a careful compilation and
review of all the evidence, and not just "evidence" that has been
contorted and massaged to fit a pre-existing ideology.